Obama Encouraging Union Harrassment

I saw this the other day, and although the public comment period is now closed, I found it important enough that I had to share it, so that we can at least be aware of what's going on in our government.

First of all, it's very scary that the DoL is collecting this information about replacement workers and making it available to the unions.  Although, in reality, most unions, especially in right to work states, have clauses in their CBAs requiring employers to give up names, addresses, and other personal information, of anyone hired to work in a CBA-covered position.

The scarier part to me is that we have just raised the debt ceiling, and given a very unclear, non-specific, almost certainly doomed-for-failure mandate to reduce government spending.  Our national debt and deficit problem is growing.  Why are we paying government officials to due unions' dirty work, and collect the names and information of scabs to pass along to the unions?

Oh wait, more government jobs.  That's just what the economy needs.  Hire more useless, pointless, government employees paid on taxpayers' dimes to work.  But make it better.  Their job is actually to make it more difficult and scary for people to go to work in the private sector.  That's right.  A strike or lockout is a huge opportunity for the millions of unemployed people in this country who are desperate to feed their families to cross the lines and actually earn (read, not be entitled to because of Union membership or seniority, but EARN) a living.  We now want to help the unions discourage them from doing just that.  This is absurd.

Obama on the Seals and Seal Team 6

I saw this the other day and found it interesting.  Just some more examples of "candidate" Obama differing dramatically from President Obama.  It will be interesting if he starts to switch back into candidate mode now.

It's interesting because to the extent that his administration has been successful, it has been largely by not following through on his own campaign promises.  Guantanamo was not closed.  We got valuable information out of Guantanamo.  Obamacare is a reality.  Because he did not work across the aisle to achieve consensus, and because he did not bring "change" to the political system.  Change would have been a common sense, plain English bill that legislators on both sides had carefully considered, and had come to a consensus on.  Instead, you have leading Democratic lawmakers saying that they will find out what's in the bill once it is passed.  You have the President posing for "bi-partisan" photo ops with Republican lawmakers, telling them his plans, and refusing to consider their suggested changes.

We are still in the recession, and the two wars in the Middle East.  We have also gotten involved in Libya.  Guantanamo is still operational.  Politics in America is still a game of partisan chicken now that one house is controlled by the GOP.  Has Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises?

Giffords Shooting and Violent Political Rhetoric

What happened in Arizona last week was a tragedy.  There is no doubt.  But what has happened in the media and on the internet, at the hands of the Left, is even more tragic, and worse yet, hypocritical.

A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician.  The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting.  This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.

In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds.  They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal.  Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.

It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.

On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office.  Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.

The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.

Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground.  Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters.  Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point.  Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.

Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President.  This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.

I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else).  I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left.  We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech.  We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.